Suchergebnisse

SUMMARY:
In his short response to the reviewers, Darius Staliūnas re-states some of his arguments in the light of the critique and concentrates mainly on some debatable interpretations of academic terminology and the choice of "Russian imperial" versus local "national" terms and designations. He also suggests that the question of more radical imperial proposals for integration of ethnic communities in the Northwest Provinces requires some new research focused on a collective biography of local bureaucracy.

SUMMARY:
This article attempts to ascertain what the Russian Imperial government was attempting to achieve by replacing the Latin script traditional in Lithuanian writing with the Russian one. This study allows at least two views of the replacement of the script to be conditionally distinguished in the Imperial bureaucracy. The differences between the models of the perception of the introduction of Cyrillic in the Lithuanian language were not grandiose. Even the noted Slavophile Aleksander Hilferding, who had proposed supporting Lithuanian national development as a counterbalance to the Poles, considered the Prussian policy, as a consequence of which the Lithuanians were assimilated, a good example. In this case, both of the conditionally distinguished groups of Russian officials and their supporters were not in much doubt that the Russian language and civilization would be predominant in this region in the future. But differences did nevertheless exist. The image emerged that the initiators of the introduction of the Cyrillic script, or at least the greater part of them, especially Nikolai Miliutin, Aleksander Hilferding, and the Lithuanian intelligentsia, understood this measure as a way to protect the Lithuanians from Polonization and as an opportunity to nurture their authentic culture by moving the Lithuanians from the orbit of Polish civilization to the Russian one. Meanwhile some of those implementing the replacement of the traditional Lithuanian script with Cyrillic perceived it as one of the tools for at least the partial assimilation of this ethnic group. (This attitude was the most clearly represented by the Vilnius Educational District Inspector for Kaunas Province, Nikolai Novikov.)

SUMMARY:
Among the different peoples of the Western borderlands, Belarusians were "latecomers." This article explores imperial ethno-linguistic policy toward the Belarusians in the context of recent debates on the issue of Russification. The author outlines different perceptions of Russianness (linguistic and confessional) and explores the concept of a three-part Russian nation – Great Russian, Little Russians, Belarusians. The author argues that by the mid-19 th century there was a need for books and press in the Belarusian language, but because Belarusians were considered Russians, the imperial establishment either preferred that they adopt Russian language and customs or, at least, limit the use of Belarusian to folklore. Despite general tendencies toward Russification, imperial policies toward the Belarusians were by no means consequent because the authorities had to tread carefully due to the presence of Poles in Belarusian lands and they occasionally made concessions to the Belarusian language.

SUMMARY:
This article explores the historical narrative presented in Lithuanian school textbooks. More specifically, the author's intent is to trace the image of the 19 th century Russian empire and its nationalities' policy. The author breaks Lithuanian historical scholarship in to the following periods: the 19 th century to 1940; 1940 to the 1990s; and the 1990s to the present. In the first period, one of the most important tasks for Lithuanian historians was to oppose the "Polonization" of Lithuanian history. Correspondingly, historians were preoccupied with either the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania before 1569, stressing the ethnic Lithuanian component of the state, or with the history of the ethnic Lithuanian population. During this period, Lithuanian scholarship viewed Lithuania's inclusion in the Russian empire negatively and focused on combating the "Russification" of the 1860s and beyond. Although some texts saw imperial policy (such as the introduction of the Cyrillic alphabet) as primarily directed against ethnic Lithuanians, others perceived imperial policy as an attempt to contain Polish influences.

During the second period, Lithuanian historians interpreted Lithuanian history as being in the first place the Lithuanian people and excluded other ethnic groups. The narrative was mostly focused on class struggle, while the Lithuanian national movement of the 19 th century was declared democratic for its exclusion of the Polonized nobility or "the feudal class." This "feudal class" was perceived as being in cahoots with the Tsar and constituted an enemy against whom the democratic national movement fought. In this period, textbooks stressed the importance of Lithuania's inclusion into the Russian empire for promoting the development of the market and preventing the assimilation of Lithuanians into the Polish culture, although it was admitted that the Russian empire was pursuing "reactionary goals" when incorporating Lithuania. At the same time, some textbooks mentioned "Russification" as a goal of Tsarist policies in Lithuania. The author argues that despite the Marxist-Leninist framework, dogmatic explanations gradually disappear from Lithuanian history textbooks during this second period.

The third period, which began with the emergence of an independent Lithuania, the author portrays as a time of pluralism. Some historians continue to regard Lithuanian history first and foremost as the history of the Lithuanian people, paying little attention to Poles or Jews. At the same time, history textbooks have appeared, which give a fuller account of Lithuanian history including histories of Poles, Jews, Tatars, and other groups. Although most authors regard Lithuania's incorporation into the Russian empire negatively and point to the slowdown of the social and economic development, many give a more nuanced view of inconsistent and hesitant imperial policies than their predecessors. In conclusion, the author regards recent developments in Lithuanian historical scholarship as generally positive with at least a few cases of Lithuanian history being regarded as the history of society, including all groups and nationalities.

SUMMARY:
Ricarda Vulpius, Mikhail Dolbilov, and Darius Staliūnas, contributors to the forum "Alphabets, Language, and National Identity in the Russian Empire" ( AI 2/2005), returned to one of the issues that emerged out of this forum – the problem of the relationship between the analytical concepts used by historians of Imperial Russia and non-Russian nationalisms, and the original political and cultural language of historical actors. Here, they explicate their understanding of such analytical constructs as the "Greater Russian nation," and the meaning of such terms as "Maloross," "narod," "Ukrainophile," or "Russophile," in their specific historical contexts. AI sees this very interesting exchange as a beginning and as a good example of the larger discussion on "languages of self description", and of their subjects, objects, and corresponding imperial and national contexts. The clarification of the key terms and concepts used by scholars and the objects of their study is the first and absolutely necessary stage of such a discussion.

SUMMARY:
The guest editors of the Ab Imperio special forum on "Alphabet, Language and National Identity in the Russian Empire" introduce in their foreword the general historiographic context for discussing alphabet reforms in the Russian Empire, as well as present the contributions published in this forum. Mikhail Dolbilov and Darius Staliūnas note that the alphabet question in the Russian Empire does not appear to be a narrow subject in so far as alphabet preservation and reforms were intrinsically linked to the symbolic dimension of language as a marker and instrument of national identity. The guest editors trace the history of alphabet reforms in respect to the Russian language and stress the acute character of linguistic debates in the wake of the Great Reforms, when processes of constructing and negotiating national identity swept the emancipated peasantry. The guest editors collate the findings of the articles' authors, noting the diverse structure of governmental decision making and the impact of governmental policies on the multifaceted competition between different nation-building projects and visions of national and cultural boundaries. They also explicate the rationale for excluding from consideration the language policies and alphabet reforms of the Volga-Kama region, observing that government policy there was to a much greater extent influenced and mediated by an expert community of linguists. Finally, Dolbilov and Staliūnas trace the political and symbolic significance of alphabet preservation and reform in the history of the 20 th century and in the context of globalization and contemporary political and legal debates on the Latinization and Cyrillicization of languages in the Russian Federation.

SUMMARY:
Отвечая на первый вопрос редакции, большинство участников форума высказались за полезность привлечения сравнительной рамки и постколониальной перспективы. Если Шейла Фицпатрик задается вопросом о наличии в индийской, китайской или среднеазиатской историографиях аналога возникшим в русистике "евразийским исследованиям", то другие участники подчеркивают плодотворность для русистики изучения того, как имперская периферия влияла на культуру метрополии в самом широком смысле. В этом свете полезны как исследования "классических", так и неклассических империй, а российский опыт имеет все шансы обогатить мировую историографию империй. Светлана Горшенина и Заур Гасимов рассматривают плодотворность применения постколониальных теорий к неклассическим колониальным державам вообще и среднеазиатским окраинам Российской империи в частности. Сергей Екельчик напоминает о попытках заменить подобный анализ самоописаниями в категориях "неклассических колоний", в то время как Джейн Бурбанк предостерегает от механического переноса "западных" категорий вместо заимствования "западных" исследовательских вопросов и выработки модели, основанной на специфических российских ответах на эти вопросы. Наиболее осторожно воспринимает перспективы интеграции России в контекст современных постколониальных исследований Пол Верт. Он подчеркивает, что к такой интеграции наиболее располагает Средняя Азия, в то время как прочие регионы Российской империи лучше описываются через сравнение с Габсбургской или Османской империями, и что тезис о влиянии колоний на культуру метрополии требует тщательной проверки. Наиболее продуктивным Верт считает сравнение регионов внутри самой Российской империи.

Отвечая на второй вопрос о тематических и хронологических предпочтениях современных исследователей и студентов, представители Восточной и Западной Европы разошлись со своими американски-ми коллегами. Если европейские историки указывают на некоторое падение популярности имперской проблематики и преобладание исследований по ХХ веку, объясняя эту ситуацию политической и академической конъюнктурой, их американские коллеги в целом не видят такой проблемы.

Отвечая на третий вопрос, посвященный соотношению новой имперской истории и модернизационной парадигмы, большинство участников сошлись на том, что, несмотря на существующую в реальности хронологическую привязку первой к периоду до 1917 года, а второй – к советской эпохе, обе парадигмы не связаны конкретным временем и способны дополнять друг друга. Если новая имперская история, по словам Пола Верта, позволяет лучше увидеть то, что реально было в империи и определяло ее специфику, то модернизационная парадигма, как подчеркнул Марк Хаген, предполагает обращение к европейскому и североамериканскому сравнительному контексту.

Четвертый вопрос, посвященный тому, как конкретное исследование соотносится с методологическими предпочтениями историка и с текущей интеллектуальной модой на академическом рынке, оказался наименее популярным. Ответившие на него участники форума идентифицировали те или иные теоретические модели, оказавшие на них влияние, но подчеркнули, что определяющими факторами для них являются специфика материала и вытекающие из их конкретного проекта исследовательские вопросы. Наиболее радикально высказалась Джейн Бурбанк, заявившая о полном неприятии "больших теорий".